RE: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]

[Bronwen C. <Bro...@ja...>]

Sounds Great :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J=E9r=F4me BERNARD [mailto:jer...@xt...]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 14:10
> To: ope...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
>=20
>=20
> Sounds good for me too.
>=20
> Jerome.
>=20
> Carlos Quiroz wrote:
>=20
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Dmitri Colebatch [mailto:di...@bi...]
> >>Sent: 04 February 2002 13:47
> >>To: J=E9r=F4me BERNARD; ope...@li...
> >>Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
> >>
> >>Given that the description class is specific to OpenJMX and the
> >>
> >interface
> >
> >>is
> >>a spec thing, I would suggest keeping the current tag for the usual
> >>scenario
> >>(as you described), but allowing an optional @openjmx:description
> >>extends=3D""
> >>for overriding this default behaviour.
> >>
> >>if you guys are agreeable with this I can check it into XDoclet cvs
> >>straight
> >>away.
> >>
> >I think this would be pretty OK
> >
> >>cheesr
> >>dim
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "J=E9r=F4me BERNARD" <jer...@xt...>
> >>To: <ope...@li...>
> >>Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:20 PM
> >>Subject: Re: [Openjmx-devel] [Fwd: JMX work, and CustomerBMPBean]
> >>
> >>
> >>Carlos Quiroz wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sunday 03 February 2002 20:43, J=E9r=F4me BERNARD wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>What bug do you have?
> >>>>
> >>>>I think there a no changes planned in XDoclet. We will just add =
an
> >>>>
> >>example
> >>
> >>>>and that's it.
> >>>>So if there is still something wrong, let me know and I=20
> will fix it
> >>>>
> >ASAP.
> >
> >>>Again with the extend=3D"XXX" which is expanded on the=20
> MBeanDescription
> >>>
> >>class
> >>
> >>>to extends XXXMBeanDescription
> >>>
> >>>Now thinking a second time about it is maybe be design, is it? But
> >>>
> >>assumes
> >>
> >>>that your extended interface also has a Description class
> >>>
> >>Yes. This is a design reason. I supposed that the class=20
> which would be
> >>extended would be a MBeanDescription class too. This is=20
> also because I
> >>found it easier to have only one extends attribute on the jmx:mbean
> >>
> >tag
> >
> >>rather than having two (one for the interface and one for the
> >>description) because I think that most of the cases will have a
> >>description extending another one.
> >>
> >>What would you prefer/propose to do?
> >>
> >>Jerome.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >>Ope...@li...
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >>Ope...@li...
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Openjmx-devel mailing list
> >Ope...@li...
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Openjmx-devel mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openjmx-devel
>=20